Can you fucking retards stop shilling for this dumbass and wikileaks already?

Assange is a right libertarian who worships these so called rights and is speaking in support of conservatives for having deigned to impart those rights upon him

...

It's sad really. Assange could have been saved from this stupidity but alt-right retards kept reaching out to him during the election while easily offended liberals turned against wikileaks for criticizing their Queen Hillary.
Like i remember when the Chelsea Manning leaks first happened all my liberal friends were completely pro-assange because he was exposing stuff from the bush administration. then as soon as the election started all the liberals suddenly became very concerned with cyber security and keeping democracy safe.

uuuuh you mean like we do now?

I think he's referring to Big Human Rights. Organizations like Human Rights Watch who conveniently act in the best interest of US/Western foreign policy.

That's not an indictment on the concept of applied human rights it's an indictment on the ruling class that interprets and implements them

read hobbes for christs sake

Check the original tweet. He's shilling for a book that shines a positive light on so called "granting of basic liberties" by conservatism as a movement

haha, I assumed he was saying Human rights were bad, but I guess it makes more sense he is saying communism is bad. Honestly, the Holla Forums position isn't too different the bourgeoisie right to exploit people through wage labor and debt bondage is cancerous tbh.

Julian Assange is a right-libertarian, so I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone.

marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1964/marxism-humanism.htm

He is right, though, because the right wing only recognizes property rights as legitimate.

Conservative and liberal are such bullshit terms. The guys who drafted the Declaration of the Rights of Man probably wouldn't be liberal by today's standards and so retarde will claim that human rights are a "conservative" invention. Meanwhile conservatives in those days supported divine right monarchy.

Property rights and individual liberties were more of a classical liberal thing I'd say

...

Hrs not wrong.

The concept of human rights has been largely used as a justification for capitalism and imperialism and is based on idealist nonsense.

I know you're trolling, but liking what specific leakers like Manning did is a far cry from praising Assange.

And no, he's not a rapist either. Still a shithead

He's wrong no matter how you frame it. You might be able to subscribe to Enlightenment values and call yourself a conservative now, but there was nothing conservative about getting on board with them when they were new ideas. They'd also have had to be clairvoyant or something to come up with a defense against communism before communism existed, but this is obviously the lolbert definition of communism as "government doing things I don't like."

What did op meme by this?

But Assange was implying that these things are good.

What exactly does Assange thinks he's rebelling against? The US is a capitalist society and its government reflects that.

He thinks he's stopping the dirty globablist commies of the UN and US liberals

Wait a second, look at what he was reading:

"The Conservative Human Rights Revolution"

He seems like a Ron Paul figure to me, like he's done interviews where he implies that the problem is cronyism and that real capitalists would respect your privacy and not start bullshit wars.

did he learn nothing from chilling with Zizek?

Libertarians don't see anti-capitalists as rational adults with opinions.

All of his work? Any specific recommendations?

This man has done more damage to the state than pretty much any other human in living memory and that is a hero

everyone is flawed,
he just happens to be persecuted by Sweden thats SocDem experiment

He probably means classical liberalism like Americans do when referring to conservatism, he's wrong about it growing out of a rejection to Communism though.

There's zero chance he considers Sweden conservative. He's a lolbert through and through, a fucking Ron Paul type dork if I've ever seen one

How so?

Leviathan, most of his other work is outdated stuff on science and mathematics. Historically interesting but probably not relevant to most people here.

who else has cucked the deep state as hard as Assange?

The "deep state" isn't a thing it's just the fucking state. The fact that this retard thinks he's fighting "cronyism" when it's just capitalism is like 80% of the problem. He would just be happy with Ayn Rand enthusiasts taking charge in the major western countries. He's not on your side

Snowden&Chelsea>>>>>>>>>>>>>Assange
The leakers are the heroes

Assange, like Stallman, is pretty aware of the dangers of corporations and governments, and has worked in communal projects a lot. But unfortunately, is pretty spooked and believes communism = big government.

It's truly a shame because these guys have at least pretty decent praxis, but they're pretty retarded in ideology.

Nah, there is the state normal, and the state that get declassified after some time period after. That's the deep shit

...

History finds a way. They'll turn back.

I don't care about ideological purity, he's right. except about the "basic liberties" part, which were probably an afterthought.

Assange is a Russian shill.

Fuck off, shill. This is EXACTLY what the alt-right claims to cover up Assad's one-sided, pro-Putin slash pro-Trump, coverage of the 2016 election. Do you believe for a second Assange doesn't know how to manipulate people via his platform?

Gulag. Now.

>>>/liberalpol/

No refunds, comrade, no refunds.

He's half right. Human Rights were invented by both the US and USSR as a subtle means of trolling each other.

Utter ideological trash. You really do belong on /liberalpol/.

Also, the thread begins with a false premise: that his comments are intended to support conservatism or reactionarism. People on the left have been expressing similar sentiments about modern "human rights" framing.

Rather than just assuming you know what the hell he's talking about, how about trying to figure out what the book he's promoting is about first. Here's part of the summary:

Does this sound like a right wing book to you? Some of you become bizarrely deranged whenever it comes to Assange.

i hope this isn't real because it's literally ayn rand tier retarded. ffs the cunt had all the time in the world recently to educate himself about rousseau, kant and hegel.

if it's real: fuck him.

It's ideological to call out the very people who helped reality TV star slash real estate mogul Trump get elected. Noted, comrade, noted. Note also the rest of your post goes into ideological nuance instead of the central point the OP is making that certain individuals on this board hero worship Assange.

Check his twitter, it's real

It's a link to this global.oup.com/academic/product/the-conservative-human-rights-revolution-9780199811380?cc=gb&lang=en&

I dunno what he meant by this, some faggot who has a pdf and autism could tell us though.

Read a book. Human rights are porky as fuck.

As opposed to Clinton, the progressive butcher of Libya? This is just the liberal framing of the leaks, turning the good Clinton into some sort of savior figure from the evil Trump/Putin.

You mean actually bothers understanding what he's talking about? Everyone else has just been reacting to a brief Twitter comment without any context or even a basic idea of the book he mentioned.

If you think Trump won because of Assange and not because neoliberalism is dying and because Hillary is the worst politician on earth then you sound like a liberal just saying

I reproduced most of a summary I found at , but I found the PDF so I'll look it over. It seems interesting.

I don't give a fuck about DNC darling Clinton. Her imperialism into the middle east doesn't matter either when Trump is enacting the same foreign policy. Fact is someone supporting either candidate, and the more bourgeoisie one at that, by shaping public opinion using an established platform is a fucking shill.

What you interpret he means by that. And whether he means that or not hardly matters when on its face he's appealing to the average Joe and Jane by saying their center-right bullshit is a good thing.

Not believing in human rights is exactly what makes me think Assange is a retarded manbaby

are you seriously arguing that Assange should have kept quiet about Hillary arming child soldiers in Africa because it might have helped get Trump elected.

The fuck are you on about? They both represented competing factions of the bourgeoisie. You would know this already, if you weren't a liberal.

He's linking to the book "The Conservative Human Rights Revolution." One would think that he's referring to the book he linked to.

Maybe that's just "what you interpret he means."

Fuck no. His reporting isn't he problem, his punditry is

Real estate mogul slash reality tv star who actively sells the idea you can be just like him if you try hard enough is more damaging to proletariats than a hag is what I mean by that. Assange accelerating the AIDS to rid the cancer doesn't excuse his shilling.

"If you criticize a blatant shill, you're a liberal." Sure, comrade, sure.

Irrelevant, see next point.

No, it isn't, it's exactly how it comes off, and the fact you can't differentiate between a message's intent and the impact a message has shows to me you really shouldn't be commenting on politics.

This, but also his near-exclusive attacks on the left. Did you ever hear a peep from Wikileaks about Trump's shady business practices? Fuck no.

Almost all politicians sell that idea. Clinton was selling that idea as well, to (liberal) women. It's hard to believe you don't remember that.

You didn't have a handle on the concept of "bourgeoisie," as if one was "more bourgeoisie" than the other.

If it is "exactly how it comes off," we wouldn't be debating it. Just because you're illiterate doesn't mean everyone who reads his tweets is. Reign in your projection a little.

Hillary sold the idea that it was women's time to shine in the name of progress which diluted the "you can become just like me!" message Trump sold far more effectively. Did you at all pay attention to their campaigns or do you have your head stuck too far up your ass to notice?

Deflection from the fact you're trying to paint me as a liberal instead of arguing the point. And if you don't think the bourgeois have their own pecking order under capitalism, you're the one who needs to read up more.

Motherfucker, how thick are you? Do you not get that the average citizen is not politically literate and that the vast majority of people reading that tweet will pick up a different meaning than whatever it is you think they will get from it? Do you also not get that Assange, an established shill as many people in this thread have pointed out, can play a message in such a way to convey multiple meanings?

He's has a point.
Here's an except from "The Apprentice's Sorcerer" by Ishar Landa which I think will be really insightful for many people to read.

Historically, liberals were never particularly keen about democracy. From the start, the notion of representative government, to which most liberals were willing to subscribe, meant a limited suffrage, which would yield results favorable to the propertied classes. For a constitutive liberal such as John Locke, democracy was not yet a problem, since the bulk of the working people were not yet politically articulate or, rather, no longer so, after the diverse radical movements of the English revolution had been subdued; he thus took it for granted that “the rule of the majority,” which he espoused, would entail little more than the rule of the propertied. A postulate which an eminent historian of early modern England summarized as follows:

Only the members of the propertied class were thus truly of civil society—entitled to and capable of politically managing it—rather than simply being in it: subjected to its authority, laws and discipline but deprived of active political rights. … It must be borne in mind that the whole purpose of the liberal civil society from a Lockean point of view was to shore up nascent capitalist property and production. The political aspect of liberalism, namely parliamentary and constitutional rule, far from being an autonomous sphere alongside the economic one, was entirely a function of capitalism, conceived at all times as fully subservient to it. Civil society was essentially a mechanism for guaranteeing that capitalism would function smoothly, and for imposing on individual capitalists an indispensable modicum of class cohesion and concerted action—for example agreeing on taxation so as to allow the state to finance its role as defender of property—without which the system would have been untenable. But taxation emanating from the outside of capitalism, independent of the initiatives of property owners and contrary to their wishes, was anathematized. “Locke’s primary and overriding interest,” as underlined by Peter Laslett (1988: 107), “was in taxation, arbitrary taxation and its iniquities.” Under such terms, there can be no question whatsoever of the political domain making independent demands on the economy, of a “social” or “moral” nature. Any such demands, unless agreed upon by “the majority” of the propertied and hence as serving their class interest, would simply mean an act of spoliation. Property and capitalist production were not, Locke insisted, a political arrangement, which could thus be potentially subject to political modification. Rather, they were inscribed in natural law, and hence preceded the political.

cont.

The very purpose of political civil society, a point which could not be emphasized enough, was to outlaw and exclude any such possibility, turn it into a logical absurdity and a moral outrage:

By natural right, politics thus dutifully ends where property begins and, if the government mistakes its place, the propertied are entitled to avail themselves of force against the unlawful law. As Domenico Losurdo (1988: 249) observes, with regards to Locke’s position: “Even if mediated by the legislative power, the intrusion of those without property in the sphere of property is always an act of caprice and of plunder, an act of violence, and therefore an act which may be legitimately countered by the violence of the victim.” Parliamentarism and the rule of law were thus from the very beginning not the liberal end itself, to be defined, say, in terms of guaranteeing political pluralism; rather, they were mere means to an end, that of protecting capitalism. And means are by their very nature not absolute; they might change along with changing circumstances. That is why Locke himself, far from absolutizing parliament, at different times could and did envisage alternative political models. As C. B. Macpherson observed (1964: 261), Locke “was consistent throughout in wanting a civil authority which could secure the basic institutions of a class society. In 1660 this required the recall of the Stuarts and the doctrine of the magistrate’s absolute and arbitrary power in things indifferent; in 1689 it required the dismissal of the Stuarts and the doctrine of the Second Treatise.” Liberal doctrines are thus amenable to change, as long as class society persists.

Rather than being limited by a political framework, liberal capitalism was in fact equipped with a built-in option to bail out of constitutionalism and revert to the rule of force, upon seeing its economic interests imperiled.

Read the above posted passages.

*I* don't believe in human rights and that's why I think Assange is a manbaby *for believing in them*. You read my message wrong.

You do realize campaigns usually have more than one message, don't you? I don't disagree that was one of her campaign messages, but Donald Trump also had multiple messages emanating from his campaign. Your dispute was with Trump being more harmful specifically because of his "everyone can achieve what I did" message, but Clinton was also selling a similar message to women. Are you saying that she wasn't and that it solely consisted of "it was women's time to shine in the name of progress"?

No, I'm demonstrating that it's self-evident you aren't from your misuse of terms.

Who's "the average citizen?" You? The people who read Assange's tweets in general? You're just inventing things based on a fixed idea that people will never follow a link and read the book's description.

And, again, if Assange was intending to promote right-wing views, he picked the wrong book to do it with.

Excerpts from the introduction:

I don't see what's wrong with what he said, even the "anarcho"-capitalists rally behind their NAP, which is just a way to tell people not to start shit against others, it should normally seem pretty obvious, but they had to rally it behind a name and make it a "rule" simply because they wanted it to include private property.

Him promoting this conception of human rights is the problem. How are you this confused?

Sorry I didn't read it that way, I thought he meant to deconstruct the notion of liberty being linked to private property that causes to frame communists as bad, I read too much into what he wrote

I always thought Assange was an anarchist for some reason, he seemed pretty chill hanging out with Zizek

he's always been a lolbert

Americans still think that liberals are conservative.

NO

Left wing = Dictatorship
Right wing = Freedumb

This is what americans think.

he seems to be part of this psuedo-leftist tendency that is imo, kind of a relic of the 2000s that was only really about 'big banks' and foreign intervention, and had no actual domestic plans (unlike berniecrats or DSA people who tend to have more serious political ambitions and policy plans), which makes it pretty easily adopted by right-libertarians

that "relic" has and will accomplish more than idpol ever will

like what?

He doesn't even have the excuse of being a burger though